• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why aren't cults and spiritual books taken seriously?

I'm not claiming proof. I'm citing evidence. Fact: the basic chemical components of life on earth all shere the same basic chemical building blocks. This must be true if there was only one origin, but does not need to be true for multiple. Therefore the current evidence favors singular. What is your evidence in favor of multiple? How is my argument irrational?

All that would mean is that if you get the chemical reactions known as 'life', it would form from the most common elements that have the best , as well as the ones with the best chemical properties.
 
All that would mean is that if you get the chemical reactions known as 'life', it would form from the most common elements that have the best , as well as the ones with the best chemical properties.

Do you mean the best possible or the best available?
 
Do you mean the best possible or the best available?


The best of those that are available. One of the criteria for being 'best' is it being common. It is isn't common, that limits the potential for growth.
 
All that would mean is that if you get the chemical reactions known as 'life', it would form from the most common elements that have the best , as well as the ones with the best chemical properties.

This doesn't explain the miracle of humanity.
 
This doesn't explain the miracle of humanity.

That , of course, is not what was being asked about. It was specifically asking about 'does all life have a common origin or not'. Someone, if they wanted, could point out calling humanity a 'miracle' is nothing but the texas sharpshooters fallacy. However, that won't stop people from needing to feel special.
 
Well, alrighty then. I stand corrected. :roll:
 
That , of course, is not what was being asked about. It was specifically asking about 'does all life have a common origin or not'. Someone, if they wanted, could point out calling humanity a 'miracle' is nothing but the texas sharpshooters fallacy. However, that won't stop people from needing to feel special.

That origin would be the big bang, assuming the Panspermia hypothesis can be confirmed.
 
the same reason global warming isnt taken seriously, no evidence that doesn't source from the fraudsters themselves.
 
I want to mention that the Urantia Book actually refers to God as the First Source and Center. God is like the first action that determined every other action.

Plagiarism.
 
Why is that? We need answers not more questions, and I think these "spiritual" groups have a lot to contribute to science if we were only more open minded about this.

Of course, we should not blindly follow whatever comes out but it's worth considering.




Science is science, religion is religion.


Science is (mostly) about what you can prove.


Religion is about faith, which is believing things that cannot be scientifically proven.



The two typically don't ride in the same car very well.
 
The two typically don't ride in the same car very well.

It might depend on the particular car and driver, Goshin.

If one approaches science in terms of coming to a better understanding of the incredible complexity of God's workings, then the car just hums along. It is only when we predetermine that we are supposed to know no more about such miracles than people living 2-3 thousand years ago that it becomes a bumpy ride.
 
There you go - in your own link to boot.

I still admire her though. I think people ought to pay more close attention to her (the good people I mean, she has plenty of bad people already).
 
Science is science, religion is religion.


Science is (mostly) about what you can prove.


Religion is about faith, which is believing things that cannot be scientifically proven.



The two typically don't ride in the same car very well.

Some individual scientists will treat science as a religion.

Any belief so strongly held that it must be imposed on to people is essentially a religion.

Any belief that professes to have the one true way is essentially a religion.
 
It might depend on the particular car and driver, Goshin.

If one approaches science in terms of coming to a better understanding of the incredible complexity of God's workings, then the car just hums along. It is only when we predetermine that we are supposed to know no more about such miracles than people living 2-3 thousand years ago that it becomes a bumpy ride.

that is how I view it. I find it interesting.
The Incredible Design of the Earth and Our Solar System

scientists are always like this is so amazing when they find something.

19 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
 
Why? if you are interested in them then help yourself.

If you have ever "helped yourself" yourself, you would reach a point where you feel compelled to share what you have learned regardless of the repercussions.
 
Why is that? We need answers not more questions, and I think these "spiritual" groups have a lot to contribute to science if we were only more open minded about this.

Of course, we should not blindly follow whatever comes out but it's worth considering.

A better question is that in the 21st century, with all we know about the world and universe, why are deistic religions taken seriously?
 
A better question is that in the 21st century, with all we know about the world and universe, why are deistic religions taken seriously?

Personal assurance - you want to know that the universe you live in is a friendly place.
 
Personal assurance - you want to know that the universe you live in is a friendly place.

I agree that people want such personal assurance and religion - particularly the notion there is a plan for you and an afterlife awaiting you, provides many people with a lot of comfort. However, strap a pack on and spend a few days in the wilderness, miles from roads or any type of civilization, and you will find that the natural world is not a friendly place, but rather its entirely indifferent to you and doesn't care where you are happy or sad, sick or in good health, fed or starving, live or die. The purpose for your life, whether you are happy or sad, and what kind of life you live is all determined from within you. The natural world is perfect, it really is, but it doesn't care anything at all about any of us.
 
The natural world is what it is--part of creation. I'm not sure how strapping on a backpack and experiencing nature in all its heartless beauty, however, has much relevance to one's belief in God save for appreciation of the limitless imagination of the Creator.
 
A better question is that in the 21st century, with all we know about the world and universe, why are deistic religions taken seriously?

because what we know about the universe and everything in it is very limited.
in as much as we still don't know how the existence of the universe began.

the entropy levels for just the formation of the earth which is unlike any other planet that we have found is not simply sheer dumb luck.
the fact that our moon is larger than what it should be for a planet our size is yet another sign.

if the moon was any smaller it would be thrown into space. any larger and we would be moving closer to each other.

read the link I posted. there are to many variables that science cannot explain logically and the entropy level simply
don't add up for the existence of the year or even life itself to happen all randomly.
 
All religions are cults. The difference between a cult and a religion is actually the size. When the group is too small we tend to call it a cult and generally this word has a negative connotation. Religion however does not have a negative connotation in every case.

Difference Between Cult and Religion | Difference Between | Cult vs Religion

That just isn't a true statement. In regard to Christianity, which started getting hijacked early on with Gnostic teachings during a time when, Christianity began its massive ascent, distancing itself from paganism on one hand and Judaism on the other, it opened the door for the Gnostics. You see the biggest fault of the Church was losing its Jewish heritage and in doing so allowed all sorts of religious beliefs to appear under the guise of Christian.

While those who are small groups who tend to be cults calling themselves a Christian Church, they are often small because of the heretic teachings they adhere to that even the main stream Bible illiterate can recognize to be false. While other cults have flourished. they often need their own translation of the Bible text or an additional book to add to it that they call sacred to make all the pieces of the puzzle fit. And today more and more "sects" of Christianity keep popping up where some no longer believe they need the Old Testament/Covenant to understand the teachings of the one they call God Jesus/Yeshua. I find that very disturbing because to understand Jesus/Yeshua you must understand Judaism in its purist form. And without that knowledge and understanding, you get churches like that one in NY where the mother, father, sister beat their sons/brother, one to death and the other in critical condition in a hospital. You get larger sects calling Sunday the Sabbath when God ordained the 7th day as the Sabbath not the first. Yet you got a lot of Christians running around calling the first day of the week the Sabbath as if they had some authority to change what God ordained. Enough said.....
 
Back
Top Bottom